(Continued from last week. Click here to read Part 1 and Part 2)
Gothard is taking the blessing promised throughout Deuteronomy and applying them to those who follow certain commands from the Mosaic law. The problem with this is that the blessings in Deuteronomy come only by following the whole law (see Deut 28:14 for example). Saying that following dietary laws, circumcising, and abstaining during the period will make you healthy, wealthy and wise is like saying that growing your hair long, not touching dead bodies, and not drinking alcohol will make you stronger than any other man. However, contrary to Mr. Gothard’s assertions, the Bible never teaches a direct connection between doing certain acts in the law and receiving blessings. The connection is between obeying all God’s commands and being blessed, not between following parts of the law and being blessed.
Notice that he doesn’t even bother to use I Corinthians 7:5 as support for his main argument. The command to abstain during the period is just assumed to be present in I Corinthians 7:5 and what I Corinthians 7:5 actually says is just tacked on to the end of the Old Testament (OT) law requirement. So, a verse which says to “don’t abstain except for mutual consent for the purpose of fasting and prayer” now is changed to a verse which says “Abstain for 2 weeks each month, period. Then if you want to abstain more than this, do it by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer and fasting.”
Notice there is no support at all for this claim. We are supposed to accept him as the expert on this I guess. Mr. Gothard must know best, him being single and all that.
Notice the verses he used here. Oh wait…there are none. Couldn’t even find a verse remotely related to this claim I guess.
So now, not only are blessings the result of following the OT restriction on abstinence, Mr. Gothard is now claiming that curses will result from not following it. At this point, it should become utterly clear that Gothard is a Legalist. He is blatantly putting Christians back under the blessings/curses of the OT covenant with Israel. Anyone who claims that the 14 day abstinence is just a suggestion for health reasons has not read closely what he teaches. The following confirms this beyond doubt…
Notice that abstaining for two weeks out of a month is no longer merely good advice or a suggestion for better health; now it is a MORAL STANDARD! One for which we should be asking forgiveness for violating.
According to I Corinthians 7, one purpose of marriage is to help with sexual self-control. According to I Corinthians 7, abstaining can lead to problems with self-control. The solution? Don’t abstain except for limited times for pursuit of some specific spiritual exercises. And note that these spiritual exercises of praying and fasting are not claimed to prevent problems of self-control, hence the need to stop abstaining as soon as the fasting/prayer is completed in order to avoid temptation. So according to Paul the solution to lack of sexual self-control is not abstaining, but indulging (within the proper context, of course).
So, Mr. Gothard gives three purposes for the law. The first two are supported with verses (and, amazingly, without a significant abuse present!). Yet the third claimed purpose is not supported with any Scripture. Guess why? Because it doesn’t appear in Scripture! The law reveals sin, but the law is not said to bring one to repentance. Gothard is likely overextending the meaning of Galatians 3:24.
He is hoping we ignore the fact that he earlier pointed out that violating the law of abstinence leads to bad consequences.
Again, notice there is no support for his theology here.
True, but this is not the only, or even the most common meaning of legalism.
Principles which Gothard unabashedly derives from the Mosaic law. This is another form of legalism–teaching Christians are morally obligated to follow the Mosaic law.
Gothard would have us believe that not following the Mosaic law is “sowing to our flesh” and that following the Mosaic law is “sowing to the Spirit.” How is this NOT legalism? How is this NOT false teaching?
(Click here to read a follow-up article to this series: “Sowing to the Flesh”)
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
David Moeller is married and is a father of five children. He grew up in the public school system, but after his family joined the Advanced Training Institute he worked in various training centers from 1995 to 2001. David has been writing about Bill Gothard's abuses of Scripture for over a decade.
More posts by DavidM
JM, I could care less whether or not you think ...
December 16, 2024 Then I have to rule that you have no evidence for ...
December 16, 2024 Alfred isn't going to put that on his blog and if ...
December 9, 2024 I can easily say that Alfred hasn't denied it, bec ...
December 9, 2024 Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024
[...] (Continued here in Part 3) [...]
[...] (Continued in Part 2 and Part 3) Featured ArticleUpon Further Review--Twisted [...]
I remember the yeast infection story from the basic seminars (even though I was very young and didn't really know what it was). I think this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. The husband was reinfecting his wife. If your yeast infection is chronic, it's a systemic problem that can be solved with medication. But no, rather than instructing women on proper hygiene, and the need to stop eating sugar and take a probiotics supplement for an infection, they are told to not have sex. ??? Even at 12 or 13 I greeted this admonition with a healthy dose of skepticism. Very good series of articles.
I think his phrase "a growing number of women with chronic yeast infections are finding..." is way too vague. Was this an official study? Or could 'a growing number of women' mean that a couple married women close to Mr. Gothard gave him status updates on their chronic yeast infections and how they improved with abstinence in marriage?? Mr. Gothard is a master at making broad, sweeping statements without including any scientific research to back it up. A growing number of women sounds impressive, but in reality, it could have just been less than a handful of women who reported their findings to Mr. Gothard. It's doubtful any scientific study was ever involved--if so Mr. Gothard would have quoted it.
"status updates on their chronic yeast infections..." lol!!
EXACTLY, Bev!!!
Enjoyed reading these and was very amused. How did he get away with this for so long?
Dear Katie, he has (so far) gotten away with this for 47 years!!
Somebody tell me again how a man who has never been married or had children can know what is and isn't good sex.
I have been alive for almost 45 years and I heard of this man and his cultic practices, but your post here is way past midnight. I think there is a general feeling that most sane folks refuse this type of meddling with your mind by using something that is out of date or practice for modernity. I think there is a word for folks who kept up with something that is out of date, it is called, superstition. I am no friend or Gothard or his cult. I enjoy my wonderful marriage first not by obeying all these rules, but first to respect and honour my marriage vow and to have my Boss being the Boss in the house, that is very anti-Gothard, but he is not my god, nor is this biblical Mosaic tyrant. Thank you for posting this!
Succinct enough for me:
"Gothard would have us believe that not following the Mosaic law is “sowing to our flesh” and that following the Mosaic law is “sowing to the Spirit.” How is this NOT legalism? How is this NOT false teaching?"
Thanks, David.
My question is this:
Why isn't Gothard being PREACHED AGAINST from the pulpits of any and all churches that respect the idea of coherent exegesis and a respect for the finished work of Jesus Christ?!?
Hi Will,
There was a brave pastor who preached against Gothard (his stronghold idea) in my church, and he literally got pounced upon and "chased out" of my church by the fervent supporters of Gothard who found offense with his preaching.
These people are so deep into it nothing you say can get into their heads..
I am devastated...
Thanks for the three articles. They are well written and clearly showing the lack of logic, and the misinterpretation of the passages. It's sad really--I just don't see how this crap made any headway. Why are people so gullible?
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this and post Scriptural and logical arguments to these teachings. A couple misconceptions that I have lived with and didn't even realize it were just refuted! My family was at IBLP headquarters for 25 years and it has been over just the last few years that I have begun healing and seeing the ministry with a balanced perspective (instead of anger and total rejection as well as avoiding even thinking about it because it upset me). Thanks again for your ministry of truth!
could the moderators make one little post where those of us who want to curse/ scream/ be irreverent/ etc... are given free reign to do so? I think that would be some of the BEST therapy I can imagine!
How does he know the FIRST thing about sex? If he follows his "rules" then he is OBVIOUSLY a virgin since he is not married!
Mixed emotions here on Mr. Gothard. On the one hand I'm not at all amazed that a world of liberal sexual reprobates is angry that Gothard calls us to strict standards with low tolerance for moral ineptitudes. Jesus taught us to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him. On the other hand, I'm trying to figure out where he got his in depth study and experience with womens issues such as yeast infections without having personal experience with it. I suppose he could have gotten it from taking a class or researching it on the internet, but if he did either one, you can be relatively certain that he opened himself up to temptation as a single man in order to do so. Still another problem I see is that just talking about such matters is enough to stir up desires in many people, be they married or not. That's why the Bible says it's a shame even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. Not sure how much latitude there is when discussing such matters, but we do have the Song of Solomon as exhibit A for how far the Bible goes in this area. Having said that, we also have to make sure that we are not turning the Gospel of Jesus Christ into licentiousness. That truly is a mark of false teachers. Overall, I believe that God has used Bill Gothard in a mighty way and would prefer to save my criticisms for someone who is overtly trying to destroy the Gospel while advocating sexual promiscuity. There are many in this day and age who are actively trying to promote every kind of sexual perversion imaginable and they richly deserve far more criticism than the nit picking that has been aimed at the likes of Bill Gothard. I'm going to have to see far better evidence against Gothard than what has been alleged here before denouncing him as a heretic or a false teacher. Until that happens, I'm going to treat him as a brother in the Lord. When I begin to see the same people who criticize Bill Gothard leveling this degree of criticism against divorce, abortion and open sexual perversion, then I may allow their arguments some credibility. But so far these people have found it much easier to pick on someone who publicly advocates purity. Not only does that not fly, it doesn't even get out of the hangar.
Scripturally speaking, going to far in the direction of "purity" is just as bad licentiousness. For example:
I Tim 4:1"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
IOW, forbidding what God has created for good is a doctrine of devils. I affirm with you strongly on the points about divorce, abortion and sexual promiscuity (and voice these things in other forums - here I tend to assume that such things are generally agreed upon). Yet Gothard goes far beyond this and strays towards what Paul says are doctrines of devils. So, my critique of Gothard is much, much more than nitpicking. Sounds like Paul sees such teachings as attacks on the gospel (and why makes the distinction between overt and covert attacks on the gospel?).
Furthermore, notice how he consistently abuses Scripture to create his positions. He goes so far as to turn some Scriptures on their head by forbidding when the passage says the opposite. Pointing out this sort of abuse of Scripture is more the nitpicking to those who value the integrity of Scripture (not to mention intellectual integrity). And again, I point out how Paul elsewhere calls this sort of teaching a doctrine of devils.
Lastly, the fact that someone may advocate purity does not set them above reproach or criticism. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are well known for advocating purity - at least on par with Gothard. Yet Gothard himself would not use this fact to excuse their abuse of Scripture and false doctrines. The ends do not justify the means nor do the surface results justify the abuse of Scripture.
Jay, there is a Scripture that says something about, 'in the last days, there shall be many false prophets who... forbid to marry, tell you don't eat, don't touch...' and he has done just that. And for him to declare ANY rule for married couples regarding their sex lives (aside from denouncing adultery and fornication etc..), is preposterous and wrong. the Scripture says, 'marriage is holy, and the bed undefiled.' and since Paul says the only 'Christian' reason for married people to abstain, is an agreed upon time for fasting and prayer, and then to get back together again quickly. Paul got his stuff directly from the Lord, BG, not so much. Not really sure where he get's his ideas from.
BTW, just a side note, Satan's name is deceiver. A false prophet often presents him or herself as a wolf in sheeps clothing, deceiving many because they have a few good things under their belt, and generally have very smooth tongues, so to speak. I think it's great that you are hesitant to think ill of a 'brother', but don't let that hesitancy lead you to overlooking some seriously wrong stuff.
Good answer, David. Subtile differences matter.
Wow. This brings back memories of sitting in the seminars, writing down the bullet points and Scripture references and then never going back to read the verses and see how they had nothing to do with the teaching!!! Makes me a little upset with myself for believing such stupidity! Thank you for your post and for breaking it all down!
i have read 7th day adventist commands and how to live God's word (as written by White) and other similar cults' publications onw aht it says in the Bible and how to live their way, I find it very interesting that all these follow a certain writing style (the way the words and sentences are contstructed) can be recognized. Now when I read any material that fits or follows that particular writing style (on any subject) I get the feeling that information might be twisted to make you accept a certain thing.
Ok, this one ticked me off! How dare he? Honestly, all this mumbo jumbo must be his subconscious desire to make people suffer from abstinence the way he does, almost a punishing type of thing. 'Since I can't have sex (even though I chose this), I'm going to spiritualize you into having as little sex as possible, in spite of the Scripture that says, 'marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.' Of course that's my opinion, but I think there is validity to it. I've seen this type of behavior in too many other people.
Man, reading this brings back so many memories of regional conferences. This wasn't mentioned in these articles, but I also remember him talking about which sexual activities are permissible within marriage. Apparently there are certain things that even a husband and wife are not allowed to do. It blows my mind that so many people believed him unquestioningly.
And it is ironic that BG, who has never been married is an "expert" In human sexuality. That would be like having a dog catcher give expert advice on brain surgery! LOL!